 All right, the mics are live. Hi, everybody, welcome to the tipping point, risks and opportunities of impact going mainstream. I'm Mark Newberg, Director of Impact Strategies for Womble, Carlisle, Sandridge, and Rice, which is a large US law firm. I'm also Managing Director of Impact Investment Strategies for Five Stone Green Capital, which is a green real estate firm. With me, I have Dave Chen, CEO of Equilibrium Capital and also run the Sustainable Investing Challenge, Morgan Stanley. Abigail Noble, new CEO of The Impact, which I'm gonna call the Giving Pledge for High Net Worth and Millennials, but she's gonna correct me. And also one of the people most responsible for the World Economic Forum's work on impact investing. Jackie Vanderbrug, one of my favorite people in Impact. We have an agreement, I have to introduce you all the time. Senior Vice President at US Trust and one of the leaders of the Gender Lands Investing Movement. And, oh, this is gonna be fun. Wayne Sylvie, founder of Calvert Investments. Let me see, Calvert Foundation and Impact Assets, currently co-chair, is that correct? All right, so there is a ton of stuff to talk about. It's very obvious looking at the crowd at this conference, the size of the crowd and the professionalism of this crowd that Impact is scaling. But before we start with questions of the panelists, let me do this. I mean, somewhere between two and five minutes really quickly, from the audience, what are the sort of burning issues we hope we, you hope we cover while we're up here? Just hands in, I'll start pointing. Somebody has to want to know something, Beth. Yeah, okay, mm-hmm. Okay, so as we scale, how do we protect the integrity of the social impact? Okay, red shirt. Hello. Could you help us understand the definition of the word scaling as you use it? Because the whole point is that sometimes, the scaled solutions don't work for individual communities. Yeah, fortunately we have a faculty member sitting next to me who can do definite. You told me not to shy away from stuff like that. It's your fault. Next, anybody else? No other burning questions from the audience. All right, we'll come back to this and we will do another lightning round. All right, so let me start with Abigail. What does scale mean for impact? Is it actually happening and who's doing it? Well, first off, it's a great pleasure to be here with you all. I love being in a room full of people who are passionate about the topic of impact investing. I think scale is a difficult concept for us to wrap our head around. Part of it is a flow in that over the years, there's been a lot more capital that's been coming into impact investing and a lot more people are talking about it. But in the context of global assets under management, it's still quite small. And it's not clear whether we'll reach the scale that other sectors, other investment areas have reached or will reach. I think impact investing has reached a tipping point in terms of awareness. When you look at three or four years ago, how many banks and mainstream institutions were talking about impact investing or offering products? It was very small. And this year was a landmark year, just looking at Bain Capital, the largest private equity firm, announcing that it was moving into impact investing, BlackRock, the largest global asset manager. Those are two really big milestones. And then when you think about governments developing policies around impact investing, that's gonna catalyze the space a lot more. Where we are now is that it's still quite difficult for a lot of these institutions to bring impact investment products into the market. And it's very difficult for individuals, average individuals to be able to do impact investing through a normal portfolio or at normal income levels. So I think we're still a long ways off from impact investing, reaching the tipping point or the scale at which it becomes the way that business is done. But I'm very hopeful that thinking about impact, positive social and environmental impact does become the way that investment decisions are made in the future. All right. Dave, we're gonna come back to this again later, as we get to institutions with more than a billion in assets under management, is impact the way it's traditionally been phrased too restrictive a term if we're trying to develop new products and services? Yes. Why? All right. I think impact and the term impact investing I think has in some ways self-restricted itself over the last few years since it got started. And I think that it is not, I don't believe, just word play that certain of the large institutions are choosing to use the word impactful as opposed to impact. Because what they're asking the question is how can I make the financial instruments impactful, intentionally impactful? And once you make that leap, I mean, let me be just a little sort of blunt here. I mean, if we walk around this conference, 90% of the conversation is about one asset class. All right, venture capital. And it's even narrower than that, social venture capital. And then it's about social enterprise, all right? And once you start to ask the question, how can I make the financial markets impactful? You begin to ask the question, how can every asset class, how can every asset strategy be made intentionally, positively beneficial to the environment, to society, and to the community? So how can you make your fixed income portfolio that way? How can you make credit instruments that way? We talk a lot about microfinance, and we don't realize that was a debt instrument, all right? At the end of the day, that was a debt instrument. And so how can we make debt a bigger part of the conversation? We don't realize that one out of 1,000 companies may be in fact venture finance, but maybe 500 out of 1,000 are debt-financable. Well, that's impactful. The fact that real estate can be impactful. I think we just sort of go on throughout that. So I think that that's one dimension where impact has been overly restrictive. I think the other dimension, and I think this is a self-inflicted injury, is that impact continues to argue whether it is market rate, below market, or above market. And I'll use almost a strategic marketing definition. If you can find someone to buy a $2,000 pair of shoes, you have a market. If you can find someone that wants to buy a $10 pair of shoes, you have a market. If there's a customer, you got a market. So why are we arguing about whether impactful strategies are below market, above market, et cetera, et cetera? And so I think these are two sort of self-inflicted dimensions of the impact conversation that make it overly restrictive, and we're still in some ways in the middle of it. Speaking of self-inflicted wounds, Wayne, you agreed to be on a panel with me. So you started not looking at impact. When you got out of Wharton and Georgetown Law, impact wasn't the first thing you did. You've seen this industry evolve over 30 years. Yes, I'm old. Last time I called you the godfather of impact, you didn't like that. I'm trying to work my way around it. Grandfather. No, godfather. Do you agree with what Dave said, or do you look at it differently? Well, no, different ways of looking at impact. And I think that in terms of what's next, for example, we've got the awareness, and now we need the product, we need the fulfillment, we need, and David and I were talking earlier, where the rubber meeting the road in a variety of ways. In impact assets, we're just launching now these two products and a sustainable agriculture fund and a microfinance fund that actually meets the needs of the financial advisors in terms of being on the DTC system, being able to go on the state. I mean, this plumbing business is probably one of the last things that's holding back our industry. And at Calvert Foundation, for example, we just launched this thing with AARP as the sidecar funds for Age Strong and to go out to whatever it is, 50 million members, including myself, with regard to investing in ways that support the aging system. And then Calvert Investments, our funds, for example, this has moved kind of from the old social investment screening into this ESG. Our CEO is just at the UN Sustainability Summit, where how do you map corporate behavior, policies, and how do we describe that investment process that maps to these sustainability goals? But let me say that, really, as an older person who's seen some of this, I was struck by a remark that Mike Milken made. This was not the Buddha, this was not Muhammad Yunus, this was Michael Milken. And he was talking at one of his conferences and he said, you know, they've done all this research and the number one finding of the research is that young people are in demeaning in their life. This is the change and this is the difference. And when you, sometimes you and I were talking about financial managers who might be in their 50s or 60s and you talk to them about these new kind of products and you say, well, sometimes the yield is kind of a blend because there's this impact and they look at you and well, I don't know, I just want market returns. You come back to them now and you can say, you might want market returns, but let me ask you this, you want clients? You don't want clients. The point is the future, and this is my longitudinal observation. The future, I mean, we are, I mean, you are the future. And it reminds me, one of my buddies was Seth Goldman who did Honest Tea and he was against high fructose syrup and this and the Coca-Cola and the fights who bought him and how are they gonna pull it. And he told me, you know, the other day they flew in to be with Coke headquarters and they're kind of like, gee, we're always in a defensive because we want this and that. And one of the executives said, well, here comes the future. And I just think that that really is the analogy of what we're experiencing today and the growth of SOCAP. If you try to think in a 10, 20 year timeframe, it's possible we're just scratching the surface of what could be the next evolution of capitalism. I'm just saying, I've known you for a- Can I answer your question? Yes, and for the first time in seven years I've heard you make a longitudinal observation. So this brings it, Jackie, you're at, you know, a major financial institution. So US Trust, part of the Bank of America family. When it comes to new stuff and clients, which I guess is the demand side, sometimes I wonder which side is which in the impact economy. How easy is it to get new stuff on an institutional platform? So obviously not as easy as most of the people in this room would like, but probably for good reasons. So I do think that the supply demand question that you're asking about is important and maybe just to follow up on Wayne's point here and maybe sharpen it or get to why we would be working to put things on our platform. Three numbers for you, so 49, 70, 85. Those are the numbers in terms of when we survey and we do a lot of research on high net worth individuals, the percentage of them that said that the environmental or social impact of their portfolio was important. So 49% of boomers, 70% of Gen Y, 85% of millennials. So we're not surprised about the millennials, right? But the fact that you're almost at half of boomers saying this is important is really valid. The other thing to note that's interesting here, we can unpack all of this later, but 40% more women said that than men. So if you look at where the money's going to, millennials and women, we have to be taking this seriously. The other piece that I find really fascinating is you ask people why they wouldn't want to do this. 46% of them say, well, because I want to keep my philanthropy and my investing separate. But women are half, men are twice as likely to say that as women. So women don't see that divide in the same way. So this is the demand side, which would say, why do we even bother to try and find, go through and find these managers? Is there a business case for an institution to do this? Yes. Right. But to your question of what does it take? For us, we don't have a separate process to evaluate impact products, right? Impact products go through the same evaluation that any other product does. So if we try and get an equilibrium product on our platform, they go through the same due diligence process. And oftentimes the challenge is it's a first time fund or the fund isn't large enough or the team doesn't have experience. There's all of those aspects that the folks look at because it is an institutional grade platform. Abigail, so one, within the membership of the impact, are you seeing sort of the same thing as the numbers Jackie just cited? And two, has there been a change at the sort of corporate level in terms of engagement with impact or ESG or SRI over the past 10 years? So the first question, I think for sure, millennials are a lot more aligned with impact and very much want to think about with every dollar that they invest or give away, knowing how it's contributing to the world that they wanna live in their children, their grandchildren, so absolutely. But we're also seeing a lot more of the baby boomers and the older generations that are saying, you know, I, and I think, you know, Pyramidiar has said, I don't get the concept of giving back the way that you do business should have social impact. And a lot more business owners are thinking through, and this is to your second question, how can I have more engaged employees by having, treating them better, getting them engaged in the social and community issues of our work? How do I reduce risk in our supply chain? And a lot of the time that happens with fair wages, it happens with thinking about your environmental impact. So that's, you know, the link with corporate, the corporate side, and I wanna distinguish between corporate social responsibility, which is usually marketing, and then when you think about social businesses or social impact, which is part of the strategy, and you see a lot more businesses that are being called out for just having a small amount of corporate social responsibility, which is almost like a moral licensing for them to do more bad or for them to kind of turn a blind eye to what they might not be doing as socially responsible or environmentally responsible with the rest of their strategy. Within the impact, which is a network of families that commit to making more impact investments and wanna do it more effectively, we're seeing a lot of families moving from having never done any impact investments to wanting to do a few, and then doing some and wanting to do a lot more, but not necessarily having the guidance and the advice from their advisors, from the people working within their family office, so they're looking for that, and they're looking for how do I create a portfolio? How do I invest across asset classes, sectors, impact themes, geographies? So I'm really hopeful about that interest, and family offices and family businesses can move a lot more nimbly because they make the decisions. There aren't as many layers within the investment decision making as would be with the pension fund or private equity fund. And it also strikes me that this is a place, I'm biased, I'm working for a law firm helping build an impact team, but it seems to me that this is one of those places where the sort of professional services backbone of the regular economy that helps make commerce happen needs to bulk up and better understand the merger of finance and mission for its clients, for corporations, et cetera, et cetera. And is that a crazy notion, or Dave, I see you nodding your head, so I'm gonna start with you. You're also an operator within equilibrium. These sort of basic nuts and bolts of how the regular economy works. Does importing that into impact matter? You know, I think you're asking a number of questions and just- That's not unusual. It is, it's good. Just a set of perspective. We operate in the real assets categories as our investment strategy. Everything we do has sustainability as a key driver for the advantages that we create in our portfolios. And then the third distinguishing thing about our strategy is that we're almost 100% institutional capital. So by that, I meant pension plans. So we actually went the long distance to actually create sustainability-driven strategies that were attractive to the institutional investors. And I think that for us, the biggest change that we've seen is the recognition. And in some ways, I think the corporations have had a lot to do with this. And that is increasingly, I think the biggest change that we've seen is the recognition by the portfolio consultants, the fund consultants that are a fundamental part of the investment process, go from looking at impact and sustainability as a fringe notion to increasingly impart responsive to the clients that they have to develop their own vocabulary, they have to develop their own models, and they have to develop an expertise in how to evaluate these and how to evaluate the economic implications of a sustainability or an impactful strategy. And so I do think that the ecosystem of professional services, but in the particular in this area of the consultants is in fact, finally starting to catch up. Is that a good thing? Well, look, you had a question back there about what's one of the definitions of scale. One of the definitions of scale is replicability. And I like to remind people that the 30 year fully amortized mortgage was an outgrowth as a financial instrument that's an outgrowth of a social policy. We would like a stable society and therefore we would like people to own houses. And that's 100 years old, but at the time a 30 year fully amortized mortgage was a financial innovation. And once it was created, it was replicatable. And then we end up with a multi trillion dollar industry. And so I think that if we have a hope. All right, so last week we did this environmental services conference every year and last year one of the grandfathers, godfathers of environmental services, carbon credits, water credits, et cetera, stood up and said, I finally get it. The capital markets that go mainstream need boring. And we like artistry, all right? Well, if you want the bank to loan half a million dollars or a quarter million dollars, 1,000, 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 times, which is what you get to scale. It's got to be routine, all right? And we can't use the vocabulary that we have problems of planetary scale and think about doing it one at a time. Wayne, I see you, what do you think, Wayne? I think that there's also the thing about the one star fish. And the point is, for example, we just put $8 million into a group in India that finances for $8,000, $10,000 private school so kids can go to school for all kinds of reasons. And it's just a wonderful opportunity. And that's where we have an opportunity to create some scale. At the same time, we invested in a company called Shangri-La Farms in Beijing. And what they do is they work with Tibetans in non-province. They do honey beekeeping. They teach them, they get hives. Then they slick it up and the fancy marketing and the upscale Beijing hotels. And you say, that's gonna change the world? Well, the fact is we also invested with people who got more publicity than any other social enterprise in China in terms of this concept and this idea. And there are thousands, 10,000 people. So sometimes just doing something and communicating it well, inspire. I mean, look at the social entrepreneurs you talk to as you walk down the hall here who hit you up and just bubbling ideas. So we have to be careful with this concept of scale is this big institution with $10 billion that does this. No, sometimes it's just somebody that packages some honey and talks to and has major media in China around, oh, isn't this an interesting way to have a business, make some impact, make some money, and maybe I can do that. All right, so Jagu, yeah, go ahead. So I think this connects back at some level to what Deval was saying earlier today in a funny way, which is sometimes we do at least pit ourselves against each other in terms of whether it is, small is beautiful, everything has to be direct versus you need the institutional scale or it's all about high impact artisan versus light. This space, I tell you, could be so much bigger if we stopped doing that and realized that we are referring each other around. So if you heard Deval, he said he got interested in this because he had started doing some pay for success contracts. So he started doing some pretty small work in pay for success that inspired him that's gonna end up being a major private equity firm launching something that could go on our platform and get distributed out, right? So at the same time, when I work and I do a lot of work with people who are interested in the social side of this and we have a women and girls equality strategy, it is a mainstream US all cap strategy investing in companies that are thoughtfully engaging women throughout their value chain. It has outperformed its benchmark, we designed it with a foundation that knows things about women and girls. But a lot of investors who start interested in that, then we'll say, wait a second, I heard about this win-win program that the Calvert Foundation has and I wanna do that too, right? So people enter, sorry, women investing in women on the private debt side from the Calvert Foundation. So people enter this space in different ways and we need to kind of enable that and respect it. The other thing we have to realize is we can be in a bubble. So all that data that I talked about in terms of interest, last week I'm in a room with 100 individuals who are centers of influence for us and I asked them how many of them have heard of Invest Divest? I got three hands, three hands. So then I had asked them how many of them had heard of the Pope and I got a lot of hands and then we started having a conversation, right? But this aspect of we can be very insular and not realize that there's a whole world out there that doesn't have this conversation yet. Abigail, I see you perking up. How much education do you have to do in sort of millennial and high net worth community about what impact is and where are they coming in? What's the first asset class that they're moving towards? Impact is impact lowercase or the impact the organization? The lowercase. Lowercase. I think most people intuitively get it. They think about what impact they wanna have on the world around them. So you don't need to do much education on that but it's the translation into strategy and talking about you need to show examples of impact across asset classes, across sectors and tap into what kind of impact they wanna have. They wanna address girls' education in sub-Saharan Africa or they want to address renewable energy and off-grid mechanisms. So it's once you start digging into that, it becomes a curiosity. It becomes something where you can help them learn and through attending conferences like this. There was a module last week that Harvard and the World Economic Forum and several members of the impact did on impact investing for next gen. So it could be a two to three day educational opportunity or it could be a lifelong thing and there's no goalpost or ending. It's a journey. So we've heard a lot of people fraying on the last panel talking about impact as a spectrum and there are different places for people to enter and different asset classes, different return profiles, all of this stuff. Wayne, where does impact start? If you were looking at a spectrum, what's the first step? If it were a large pension fund that had never done anything before, what's the first thing to look at? I also, chairman of a company in China doing corporate social responsibility and you get a chance to ask these questions in a fresh environment where you don't have freedom. And what's interesting is that to me, it doesn't start without there, it starts within here. This is about a journey to values, a journey with values and finding out who you are and how you fit in the world and your outlooks and your views. To me, this is where impact begins, knowing who you are. It's not about, forgive me, attending a conference and they tell you this and that, it's about. And I'll even go a step further which I have a reputation, I might be crazy and this will prove it. So I have people in Beijing right now and I decide, you know what impactful thing? Some people spend a lot of time in China and they expat, they open a bar and blah, whatever, no, no. I'm opening a float center. This is a way where you can do these isolation tanks, you can float and you can be present and you can have deep meditation. And we're not gonna discuss the measurement issue but I believe, one chance that if you wanted to measure this, if this becomes franchisable and if the Chinese can find a certain kind of way that who they are and their values, which by the way has been very lost, it could save the world. So put that in one of the measurement consultants bottle but my point is that I feel all this and also people manifest in different ways. There's not one way to have your social values or you should be like this but it is being in touch with who you are and how you express yourself in the world. So it starts with you and I feel that part of what we're gonna see in our movement. You know, in Silicon Valley last year, Mark you had this innovation summit and all these people but around the corner, up the road, there was another summit called Wisdom 2.0. Well, Wisdom 2.0 had 1,500 slots, they were sold out months in it. I mean, we had a great conference. But there's was bigger. There's was bigger. There's was like, and why? Because there is a certain technology to innovation which your conference and all the people but the technology is there but then there's the ah-ha, the what, why? And I feel like that's where this Wisdom 2.0 is the create, you know, this is like what? So I think there's part of that to the future in answering your question. So let me come back to the scale question. So there's the ethereal nature of impact, the sort of very qualitative, hard to measure, everyone's been arguing about it for 10 years or more now and then there's the who is deploying money to what question and Dave, first part of this question to you. Jackie said earlier that due diligence for impact at scale is the same as due diligence, period. Should it be that way, should it be different as an investment manager? Oh, look, at the end of the day, the second word in impact investing is still investing. And we have an obligate, you know, one of the first questions I ask the students is tell me the difference between a donation, philanthropy and investing. And let's not use terms of art, let's really try to. And the reality is if we're gonna invest people's money, they expect fiduciary care, they expect a return. It may be small, it may be large, it may be appropriate to the benchmark, it may be appropriate. And so, and they expect professionalism, all right? And so this issue of due diligence, this issue of institutional scale, you know, I look at one of my good friends, Gloria Nieland, who decided to build a massively scalable, distributable, retail, impactful debt product. Well, in some ways, your knee jerk is to say that because it's a retail product where the average investor may only be a $2,000, somehow that must be a lower grade than an institutional product. Well, Wayne knows what it's like to sell mutual funds, all right? In fact, the bar is as high if not higher. And so the idea of professionalism, the idea that we live in a compliance world, the fact that this is money and we're caring for it in the, God forbid, hundreds of millions, if not billions, means that there is a level of care and a level of professionalism as to take place. So as we apply that level of professionalism and care to the investments, Beth, back to what you asked earlier, how do we make sure that what Governor Patrick called the mission lock is somewhere in what we're talking about as part of the impact economy? How do we not lose the benefit we're seeking to produce by growing this industry? Abigail? So I partially agree with Beth. I think there are many circumstances where impact and financial return go hand in hand. Lockstep or it's a virtuous cycle. And by reducing your reliance on fossil fuels and thinking about more sustainable supply chains and energy sources, you improve your bottom line. When you think about a product that resonates with people's integrity, there's gonna be a stronger brand loyalty. And that's what's behind things like Warby Parker. And you look at so many things that have experienced volatility, so many products that have experienced volatility in the market, so many consumer goods that have fallen out of favor and it often links to a problem with governance or a problem with social responsibility. And in a way, impact could be a proxy for a well-run business over the long run. Insurance companies are looking at green bonds because over the long run, it produces better risk adjusted returns for them and it relates to their business model. So I do think that the rise of B corporations is gonna, and the preponderance of them now is helping with the mission lock thing, but I caution with us saying that you can't get impact at scale because it's a different form of that trade-off question. Jackie, what do you think? Well, one part of this, and maybe it's a sub part because I would agree with a lot of what Abigail said and then one of the things that we're really asking questions about is measurement. Because at some point, a lot of people will say, well, the definition of impact investing is intentionality and trying to get social and financial benefit and measuring it. And that's hard to do at scale in a regulated industry and so forth, but as we've unpacked it, part of it is to say, well, investors wanna know that you are, that you're doing what you said you were gonna do. They want some aspect that you're not in style drift, mission drift, et cetera, right? And then they want some connection or storage back to how that's happening. And I feel like we need to take some small steps, right? And we're starting to see that, we're starting to see that from our platform managers who could say, well, here's some of my reporting around how you can tell that actually the impact thesis that I had, whether it is an environmental thesis, a social thesis, some kind of aspect of a product thesis or whatever it is, that you can hold me accountable and here's how I know that. And that piece is gonna be interesting because you're starting to see folks come back and say, okay, I'm watching that reporting in a different way. Dave mentioned fixed income and I was delighted to see Columbia launched a fixed income, a social impact bond fund and it was not, let's be clear, it was not a Sib or a pay for success fund. This is mainstream, right? Different asset class. Different asset class here, right? And they are absolutely measuring the sectoral impact and then the extent of that, right? In terms of is it a impact investment in terms of where the capital is being deployed and what kind of census tract, zip code, need, intensity is going on there. Again, but this is all in a mainstream product. It seems like management rigor being applied. You know, there's this whole mission lock and scale question I think is, I think we ought to get back to one of the things that I think is really basic here, which is that it's a human system and just because you're small doesn't make you holier and just because you're big doesn't make you evil, it's difficult all the way through. I mean, it just is difficult. And so there's a tendency to believe that by contractually bounding our company, whether a benefit corporation or whatever, that will make us more missiony. And I think that at the end of the day, you just gotta be really humble about this. I warn our company all the time and it's rooted in the culture that cultures are fragile. They can change at a moment's notice and every company hits a moment of truth and where you will be hit with an ethical dilemma. And honestly, I can't tell you where we're gonna go. I can only tell you where we hope we go and that that moment of truth, we will decide and we will find out how the decision goes down and we will get to live another day to the next moment of truth. And if you keep that humility and intentionality, but there is no, I label you so and therefore you are more missiony, okay? And I think that there's a desire on our part to believe that we can do that. And we're a human system, all companies, all funds, all everything that's bigger than 10 people is a really, really difficult to manage human system. All right, so moment of truth for the panel and then we're gonna go to questions from the audience. Major capital institutions coming into the impact economy, good or bad? Give me a moment. Good, I mean, let's bring as many people as we can into this tent, add rigor to it. And, you know. So, good, right? I, otherwise I wouldn't have joined one, right? But I will say, also I really don't think it's as scary as it's being perceived, right? I think it expands the conversation. It does not at all negate the boutique, niche, innovative, deep impact work. And, you know, again, it's all part of an ecosystem. So, yes, good. Wait, let's say good if we also develop the con and respect the concept of deep impact instead of what might be called impact like, which is, does lend itself to large institutional, large applications? You know, I'll answer that question with a number of the things that have been said already. And that is, it takes a lot of different, you know, there are days when you do want to go to McDonald's and grab a cup of coffee. It's just a convenience issue. And then there are days that you want to pay four and a half, five dollars for this custom-dripped cup of coffee. And you're just really ecstatic that you live in a neighborhood that has one. Well, you live in Portland, do you have more access? Yeah, we have more of those. And it's a little bit like, here's the level of conversation I think we're all hoping we get to. Your financial advisor, whether you're an institution or a high net worth. And by the way, these are really hard questions. Sits down and says, hey, are you a conservative investor or an aggressive investor? All right, that's a very typical conversation. Where are you in your age? Where are you in your risk spectrum? And then they start to fit the portfolio or the strategy to that. And there's gonna come a day when they're gonna say, how much impact would you like to have? Or how much, you know, impactfulness would you like to have? And what's your risk tolerance for that? And he'll say, oh, I'd like to be really impactful, but I have a really low risk tolerance to which the manager is probably gonna say, well, you know, our narrow choices are this. And so that's a mature conversation. And we're not quite there yet because we have to have product, we have vocabulary. But that's why I think bucketing this into big is good or big is bad, but it's about the maturing of good products that fill this need. So, yeah. Yes, and we are looking at that right across the wealth allocation framework, which most, as you say, the conversations people have with their financial advisor. So what do I have in my safety bucket? What do I have in my market bucket? What do I have in my aspirational bucket? That spectrum can also be had from an impact perspective. So you can really quickly take the products that we have and map them into those categories and start to have a conversation. And people can have aspirational impact and they can have market rate impact. That's stuff we were talking about in terms of ESG and they can have the safety and green bonds or however it is. And you can have a conversation. It strikes me a lot as if we're now getting to the point where we're combining art and science to create product that can scale. And to me, I've always thought it's kind of hard to grow an economy if you intentionally exclude institutions that already have money from it. You're dramatically narrowing the circle of what can be achieved. So we've got time for questions from the audience. So let's see hands. We'll start in the middle there in the blue, then next in the red. Hi, I'm just interested to know from the panel, what do you guys see as the biggest gaps in the industry from a going mainstream, for whatever we mean by that term, mainstream, but as I say, the gaps in the market from a going mainstream. I've heard Ronald Cohen talk about it. What's preventing it. Can you ask the question without the microphone? Yeah. So biggest gaps in the market for going mainstream. Jackie, you want that? So I guess I would say one, we need to continue to see new product. So for instance, we have now we offered the Turner-Agassi Charter School Fund at a $400 million fund that as we start to see that can get us to more of a mainstream product. I had this conversation with Randall Kempner of Andy said, Jackie, if you really look at impact investing, we've been growing linearly. So unless we have the major institutions playing, we will continue to grow linearly and we're not going to get to the problem solving that we need to. So part of it is product. Part of it is advisors. Some of this stuff has all been talked through. Part of it is regulatory and a whole conversation there. All right, so let's let David and Wayne take this and we're going to go to the next question so we don't run out of time. Well, I would just say, for example, in, to me, there's a lot of regulatory issues around taking smaller product and be able to distribute it without certain exemptions and that kind of thing and a bunch of us are working on that. But in terms of developing product, for example, I see where there are a lot of these impact funds that are happening, but that as more money wants to go in, that they might start the old merchant bank model of actually syndicating off their opportunities where their fund puts up some money to show they've got money in the game, but then they're able to package because they've done the due diligence, they've underwritten a platform that, again, can turn around and allow the public to go into it in the creative ways that can happen. I mean, for example, if people only get their money, if people make an investment in a direct and they only can get their money back and any profit goes into their donor advice fund and impact assets, all at once you're exempt from federal securities laws because this is a charitable intent provided it fits with a particular program. I mean, we're playing with various ways to, and then the Jobs Act under Title II exempts you from some of the blue sky laws and you combine a few things. But I think this, if we can figure out how to create these platforms that have some of the due diligence, have people who put their money in as well and have a, I think we have a chance to do an expansion and you build a reputation for the underwriters and for the opportunities. The demand is there, it's the plumbing that still needs to be figured out in my opinion. Dave? Yeah, I think some of this also has to do with categorization and that is, for example, if you look at green real estate, for example, or sustainable community real estate investment or low income housing, which I think it's really hard to argue that those aren't impactful strategies. We're already talking about strategies that are widely available that are in the billions of dollars. If you look at sustainable forestry or conservation oriented forestry, you've got several funds that are already in the 500 to 750 million dollar weight class. You've got new forests that's pushing a billion, all right? So when you talk about these large asset categories, you already have some very, very both socially and environmentally driven asset classes that are already there. And if you widen your scope of what constitutes making a difference with the capital investment, it's hard to argue that water is in investable categories finally coming about, all right? It's hard to argue that water infrastructure. I think one of the most exciting categories that's coming about is green infrastructure applied to the municipal bond marketplace. I think that's why there's so much excitement about why DC water, the next bond offering that they're having is so exciting because it's using both natural systems as well as green plant facility and using one of the most stable forms of financing municipal bonds. That literally is already gonna take you into the tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars. So I think this is about really opening up the lens of how do we use the capital markets to actually deliver intentional benefit, all right? It's not just the fact that we have a 20 million dollar social venture fund that we'd like to push the 60 million dollars. And when you open that lens, the deal flow is massive. Let me answer the question from something that hasn't been talked about at all today. And that's what's going on in the largest institutions in the world. You haven't lived until you've had senior managers at Norge's Bank ask you what the definition, Norge's Bank which is the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund ask you what the definition meaningfully and substantively of sustainability, all right? They take that extremely seriously. And we find that many of the Nordics and many of the Northern European pension plans and some of the North American ones like the Canadians have been asking the question what's the downside risk of climate change within their long duration portfolios? And then now after they ask that question they ask what's the opportunity set in a long duration portfolio? So these are 200 billion dollar weight class entities that are asking these questions. And so they're asking of what do we own today that's an exposure and what do we need to be in to actually foster that? And if you have any doubt that the capital markets can move at that kind of speed just look at the renewable energy industry in the United States, right? I think on a very conservative basis we're talking about 300 billion that's been deployed in the last 13, 14 years. So when you open up the lens you can see the massive opportunity set that actually opens up. So it's pretty clear there are no simple questions when you're talking about weight classes this big. So let's go right there. You just shout it. How can we actually get to the point of communicating at the individual investor level no mission, no margin? I'm not sure that I quite understand the question. It's that routinization of. Look, this is one of the down, in a funny way I think the impact investing conversation this is actually one of the downsides. All right, so the market solves everything? No, the market doesn't solve everything, okay? If we had wanted telephones in Appalachia, okay? There is no market reason to ever have put anything, rural electrification or rural telephones in Appalachia. There is no business case, there is no market, all right? The only way you can do that is through some level of community intervention or governmental intervention. So the juice that we've been fed this last few years is that the market can solve everything and it doesn't, all right? And so the danger of that is to confuse the NGO mission with money making, all right? There are going to be cases where we truly do have market failures, where a market mechanism can help solve some things, but that isn't everything. So we'll continue this one afterwards. We've got three minutes left, I wanna get two more questions, so let's see if we can do that. Okay, so it seems we're inevitably going mainstream, good, bad or indifferent. There are real questions, concerns about greenwashing, can the panelists give us some good, practical things that we need to do to keep our eyes on, to minimize that? So I'll, I'll, I mean, we're one of the leaders in green bonds and led the coalition to create green bond standards. And I think the coalition part of that is as important because the standards are gonna have to evolve and get deeper and more transparent and so forth. But this aspect of nobody wants to see greenwashing, pinkwashing, rainbow washing, pick whatever term you want, right? But let's have the coalition side of it and that that is the conversation before about the, you know, SASB or GRI or pick which reporting mechanism, like pick one that's already out there and support that. I mean, I think of this the way I think of energy star in US. Not everybody knows what energy star means, but they know that energy star has been certified and a dishwasher that is energy star certified is some percentage more efficient than the average dishwasher that's not energy star certified. And I think Governor Patrick said it among others that you don't have to create a new thing every time there's a new fund or a new investment option or a new company. There are, this industry impact has spent years and millions of dollars developing essentially gap and morning star for impact. Let's use what's been created and embed that within documents and management practices. So last question right there. If we want to scale, we need to get the institutional assets into the impact space. How do we get around this concern about fiduciary duty here in the US that we're not supposed to look at anything except risk and return? Who, in one minute, who wants to argue about Milton Friedman? About what? Milton Friedman. So let me just say, so one of the reasons we did impact assets is we're donor advised fund, which means these are charitable activities and opportunities and within that you make investments in some of these other funds. And then you have people in the foundations and the endowments and others who have a certain mission, IRS just came out allowing foundations inside their corpus to do returns that might be below market but within their program. So it's emerging out in a real fashion that way, but I'm gonna. Yeah, I would say, so if you haven't read the report from the PRI from two weeks ago, I highly recommend that because they really take this on head on the other pieces is to what Dave said, right? So I work for a fiduciary institution. We're going to have a certain type of investment opportunities and we're coming at that more like the Norwegians, right? That there is opportunity and risk avoidance here from a long term. There are others who are gonna say, we didn't do our social impact bond on the fiduciary platform. We did on the brokerage platform, right? And individuals can choose, again, that aspirational impact. You just have to be clear about the choice that you're making. So I think that that's part of the process is that back to the clarity that Deborah was talking about. And I just further want to say that we have this prudent man role and some of us have been talking. We need the prudent woman role, not to be sexist, but the idea is there's an infrastructure here that needs to create the fecundity of our earth, of our new companies and our opportunities. And how do you, as a fiduciary, not just say I'm gonna take the fish out of the sea, but also I'm gonna put some money into fisheries. That's the question before us and thank you. So I'll give you something to think about. Fiduciary duty is technically duty of care and duty of loyalty. And duty of care and duty of loyalty to who and over what period of time. And the time element is actually really forgotten and it's actually what's driving many of these pension plans to actually rethink this whole issue. So if in fact I have duty of care and duty of loyalty to my audience, in this case pensioners, over a long period of time, and the time is really important. And by the way, I wanna make sure time here is not code word for manana. I get to pay, get my returns later. It means that I have a duty over that period of time. And now within that context, what are my rights to operate? What are my rights to be successful? And what are my obligations over that long period of time, both on the risk and opportunity set that fundamentally changes the way you think about fiduciary duty. So once you go back to first principles of care, loyalty and time, you begin to really rethink what your fiduciary duty is. Abigail, last word. Quite simply, I think our fiduciary duty over the long run or over the medium term will be a lot more about community. And pension funds will start to take into effect or into consideration how their investments affect the employees whose pension funds they're managing and the communities around them. So I think we're gonna have a lot more broader definition in that. Think about the shift in ESG. It's pretty hard to argue that a board isn't performing its fiduciary duty in the United States now if they have significant operations in the Southern US or in an earthquake zone in the Pacific Northwest and they're not considering sustainability and secondary operations. And this argument is changing as we talk. And since we're over time, I wanna close by thanking the panelists and saying, if time is money and it is, their time is really valuable, especially at the weight classes at which they're playing. So thank you everybody.